You are here: / / CLAIMANT STRUCK A DOWNED LIGHT POLE WHICH HAD ROTTED BELOW GROUND, STATE...
,

CLAIMANT STRUCK A DOWNED LIGHT POLE WHICH HAD ROTTED BELOW GROUND, STATE DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE CONDITION.

The Second Department determined the state did not have actual or constructive notice that a light pole was rotten. Claimant was injured when his vehicle struck a downed pole. The rot was not visible above ground. Evidence that rot was visible on other poles did not provide adequate notice:

Here, the Court of Claims correctly concluded that the claimant failed to establish that the State had either actual or constructive notice of any dangerous condition of the subject light pole. Rather, the evidence established that the rot on the pole was at the bottom of the pole, which was buried between six and seven feet below ground. Thus, a reasonable inspection would not have revealed the dangerous condition. The claimant’s evidence that a witness noticed rot on some of the wooden poles along Ocean Parkway during the prior 15 years is insufficient to provide notice regarding the specific pole involved in the accident. “A general awareness of a recurring problem in insufficient, without more, to establish constructive notice of the particular condition that caused the accident” … . Jeffries v State of New York, 2017 NY Slip Op 02409, 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

You might also like
FAMILY COURT PROPERLY DETERMINED NEW YORK WAS NOT THE APPROPRIATE FORUM IN THIS CUSTODY DISPUTE, BUT THE NEW YORK PROCEEDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN STAYED, NOT DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
NO ONE, INCLUDING DEFENDANT DRIVER, SAW THE 17-MONTH-OLD BEFORE HEARING A LOUD “THUMP” AND FINDING THE CHILD LYING BEHIND DEFENDANT’S CAR; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER AND PROPERTY OWNER LIABLE FOR PLAINTIFF’S FALL UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), THE COMPANY WHICH HIRED PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT BECAUSE IT HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SUPERVISE, EVEN IF IT DID NOT EXERCISE THAT AUTHORITY (SECOND DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL ON ICE AND SNOW AFTER GETTING OUT OF A VEHICLE RESULTED FROM OPERATION OF THE VEHICLE SUCH THAT THE INSURER IS OBLIGATED TO DEFEND THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE (SECOND DEPT). ​
PROOF AT DARDEN HEARING DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PURPORTED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT EXISTED AND PROVIDED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS DEFICIENT; THE FAILURE TO SUBMIT THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE BANK’S AFFIDAVIT RENDERED THE AFFIDAVIT INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY (SECOND DEPT).
Police Did Not Have Sufficient Information to Justify Pursuit of Defendant; Street Stop (DeBour) Criteria Clearly Explained
THE LAWSUIT SOUGHT RETURN OF A DOWN PAYMENT UNDER A REAL ESTATE CONTRACT; BECAUSE THE LAWSUIT DID NOT AFFECT TITLE, POSSESSION, USE OR ENJOYMENT OF THE PROPERTY A NOTICE OF PENDENCY IS NOT APPROPRIATE (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FOOT OF A DECORATIVE FENCE OVER WHICH PLAINTIFF TRIPPED WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS... FAILURE TO PRESERVE SURVEILLANCE VIDEO WHICH ALLEGEDLY SHOWED HOW PLAINTIFF...